CIIC no. 057

Location and history:

According to Brash, OIM 137, the stone was discovered by one E.G. McDonald in June 1856 and first published by Windele [where?]. Brash himself visited it several times.

The inscription was mentioned as "Greenhill" in Brash, JRSAI 10, 1869, 258 as an example for an element RITTI; cf. {106}.

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 8'1" x 1'10" x 1'0"

Published illustrations:

Brash, OIM, Pl. XII (draft);

Macalister, Epig. 3, 104 (sketch);

Macalister, CIIC 62 (sketch).

Reading Brash, OIM 137:

TTGENUMAQIMUCOIQRITTI

"DGENU MAQI MUCOI QRITTI"

"GENU THE SON OF THE SWINEHERD CURITT".

The word initial TT- stands for D. - Cp. Geno in Ann.Ulst. AD 578, 587; Gaulish Ginia etc. - MUCOI rather belongs to muicídhe "swineherd" than being a word meaning "son of" as does MAQI. [Some more comments to this theory follow.]

[p. 140:] CURITTI appears also on the stones at Ballyneanig {146}, Ballinrannig {149}, and Ballyvooney {270}; without "prefix" it occurs in the forms RITTI͵ RITTE͵ RITTOS. Cp. Gaul. Rita and the tribe of the Curetes mentioned by Dionysius Halikarnassos.

Reading Ferguson, OI 88 (138.):

TRENU or TRENI MAQI MUCOI QRITTI

Thus the inscription may be read according to a cast made by Rev. Th. Olden, Ballyclough; Brash's problem concerning the word initial double letter can be dismissed.

Reading Macalister, Epig. 3, 103 (160.):

TRENUMAQIMUCOIQRITTI

Here we have a gen. of Tren ending in -u as against a second Tren which belongs to the -i-declension; this is present e.g. in Ballyknock V {86}. The first one reflects Trian, gen. Treno, the second one Tren, gen. Trein. Cp. the stone from Cilgerran / Pembrokeshire {428} with Ogam TRENAGUSSU MAQI MAQI-TRENI as against Lat. TRENEGUSSI FILI MACUTRENI. - For QRITTI cp. the Ballyneanig stone {146}.

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

TRENU MAQI MUCOI QRITTI

The B-strokes of 1R₁₂₃ are "chipped away". This explains Brash's reading TTGENU. The inscription was damaged "in recent years" by "Yahoos" who engraved additional strokes on the inscribed edge.

Interpretation Korolev, DP, 64:

TRENU MAQI MUCOI QRITTI

The ending -U is problematical, because the frequent name *Trēnos is a stem in -o-, and the genitive of -u-stems should end in -o < -*ãs.

Reading Gippert:

Angle, up:

T(R)EN(U MA)Q[I MU]COI Q(R)ITTI

ᚈ(ᚌ)ᚍᚓᚅ[ᚒᚋᚐ]ᚊ[ᚑᚑᚋᚒ]ᚉᚑᚔ᚞ᚊᚌ(ᚍ)ᚔᚈᚈᚔ

ᚆᚆᚆ(ᚋᚋᚋ)ᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚁ(ᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆ(ᚐᚐᚐᚐ)[ᚐᚋᚐ](ᚐᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚋᚋ(ᚋᚋᚋ)ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ

The stone has in fact been badly damaged by secondary encarvings. Nevertheless the inscription is mostly well readable. The second letter seems doubtful because the presumed M-strokes hardly reach the B-surface; that it is an R can be ascertained by its slant only, comparing it with the T-.

End of output